Overflights of Units of the National Park System

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 91 and 135

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

National Park Service

36 CFR Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7

[Docket No. 27643; Notice No. 94-4]

RIN 2120-AF46

Overflights of Units of the National Park System

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration; National Park Service.

ACTION: Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM); Disposition of

comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document disposes of comments received in response to an

ANPRM published in the Federal Register on March 17, 1994. The ANPRM

sought public comment on general policy options and specific

recommendations for voluntary and regulatory actions to address the

impacts of aircraft overflights on national parks. This document

summarizes those comments and provides an update to the public on

matters concerning air tours over units of the national park system.

ADDRESSES: The complete docket, No. 27643, including a copy of the

ANPRM and comments on it, may be examined in the Rules Docket, Room

915G, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800

Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC, 20591, weekdays (except Federal

holidays), from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Davis, Air Transportation

Division (AFS-200), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence

Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone: (202) 267-4710.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 17, 1994, the FAA and the National Park Service (NPS)

jointly issued an ANPRM titled Overflights of Units of the National

Park System (59 FR 12740). The ANPRM cited the commitment of both

Secretary Babbitt and (then) Secretary Pena to address the issue that

increased flights over the Grand Canyon and other national parks have

diminished the park experience for park visitors and that measures

should be taken to preserve the quality of the park experience. This

ANPRM sought comments and suggestions that could minimize the adverse

impacts (e.g., noise) of commercial air tour operations and other

overflights affecting units of the national park system.

The FAA and the NPS sought public comment and recommendations on a

number of options, including voluntary measures, the use of the Grand

Canyon Model, a prohibition of flights during flight-free time periods,

altitude restrictions, flight-free zones and flight corridors,

restrictions on noise through allocation of aircraft noise

equivalencies, and incentives to encourage use of quiet aircraft. In

addition, the FAA and NPS asked specific questions, from both a

technical and a policy perspective. For example, the agencies asked

whether commercial flights should be banned from some parks, and what

criteria should be used in making these determinations. In the ANPRM

the FAA also asked the public to consider categories other than air

tour/sightseeing operations, and the factors to be considered for

addressing recommendations regarding overflights. The agencies sought

comment on the use of quiet technology, and whether overflights should

be conducted under the regulations of part 135. The use of special

operations specifications was questioned, as well as the use of the

Grand Canyon, with its extensive regulation of airspace, and Hawaii,

which at the time was undergoing a public planning process, as models

for other parks. The full range of questions is found at 52 FR 12745

(March 17, 1994).

The FAA received over 30,000 comments in response to the ANPRM,

most of which were duplicate form letters (one form letter accounts for

over 24,000 comments). Some of the comments included references to

other studies and analyses of overflights issues, which the FAA

considered in its review. Of the comments received, other than form

letters, slightly more than half favor further regulation, and slightly

less than half oppose further regulation. Of the form letters, most of

which were collected and submitted by air tour operators, over 90%

oppose further regulation.

Commenters included individual park users, air tour operators and

their representatives, environmental organizations, state and local

organizations, and congressional representatives.

Summary of Comments

The following is a brief summary of the comments received. While

space does not permit an in depth discussion of every comment, this

summary presents an overview of the public positions on the most

important issues related to overflights.

(1) Voluntary measures. Many commenters state that the voluntary

measures already in place, such as the 2,000 foot minimum altitude

guideline, are not working. Some of these commenters argue that such

measures fail because aircraft operators do not recognize the inherent

conflict between solitude and noise.

Other commenters argue that voluntary measures work, stating that

the few operators who refuse to comply with the voluntary programs are

at fault, not the industry as a whole. Several of the commenters note

that pilots who make the effort to comply with existing voluntary

guidelines are not recognized and are often criticized along with

pilots who are not following voluntary guidelines.

(2) National rule versus park-specific rules. Although the ANPRM

did not specifically address a national rule versus park-specific

rules, there were some who commented on this issue. Generally, those

persons do not think that a general rule could cover all park

situations because of the variations among parks in such areas as

ambient sound levels. For example, Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA)

points to the amount of air traffic and unusual terrain at the Grand

Canyon, which require specific regulations for that park.

Several commenters, including the Alaska Regional Office of the

National Parks and Conservation Association, recommend separate

regulations for national parks in Alaska because, in

[[Page 17294]]

some instances, air travel may be the only way to access these parks.

Some commenters suggest flexible regulations that could adjust to

the varying considerations of parks (e.g., rules that could vary the

spacing of flight-free times).

(3) Regulation of sightseeing versus regulation of all commercial

overflights. Several commenters recommend extending overflight

regulation to other types of aircraft that create noise over national

parks, including military aircraft, NPS aircraft used for

administrative and park maintenance flights, and commercial jets.

Several commenters suggest distinguishing between private and

commercial flight operations over parkland zones.

(4) Grand Canyon and Hawaii as models. Some commenters support

applying the same limits used at the Grand Canyon and Hawaii to other

parks, while other commenters oppose such measures.

(a) Flight-free zones and corridors. Several commenters oppose the

imposition of flight-free zones because they would create higher

traffic density and therefore increase the possibility of accidents, as

well as produce greater noise impacts. Some of these commenters point

to the experience at the Grand Canyon stating that SFAR 50-2 has

created more compressed air traffic resulting in less safety and

increased noise problems. Others say that 84 percent of the Grand

Canyon is already traffic-free, and therefore additional flight-free

zones and corridors are unnecessary.

Other commenters support the establishment of such corridors over

certain sections of national parks. For example, several commenters

support a two mile wide no-fly buffer zone around the entire perimeter

of Hawaii's national parkland.

(b) Flight-free times. Some commenters are against establishing

flight-free time periods and say that they would do little to mitigate

the negative impacts of overflights. Some air tour operators say that

these restrictions would also have substantial economic consequences on

their operations.

Other commenters support the establishment of flight-free times or

days, some of whom recommend capping the total number of flights

allowed per day over national park. For example, the Grand Canyon

Chapter of the Sierra Club recommends restricting the total number of

flights at Grand Canyon National Park to pre-1975 levels in order to

reduce crowding in flight corridors, thereby lessening noise impacts

and increasing safety.

(c) Altitude restrictions. Many commenters suggest imposing

specific minimum flight altitudes, for example, the Grand Canyon

Chapter of the Sierra Club recommends that altitude restrictions not

allow flights below 14,500 feet mean sea level.

Some commenters, such as the Grand Canyon Air Tourism Association,

oppose blanket altitude restrictions that do not take geographic

structures into account. Other commenters argue that altitude

restrictions could be dangerous in weather that necessitates IFR

operations.

(5) Use of noise budgets and incentives for quiet aircraft

technology. Most commenters oppose the adoption of noise budgets

because they are difficult to administer and are not cost effective.

For example, the Grand Canyon Air Tourism Association says that noise

budgets would be difficult to apply to the Grand Canyon because they

would require expensive noise monitoring to ensure equal implementation

by operators. Others argue that noise budgets would not substantially

relieve the overall noise problem.

Several commenters support the adoption of noise budgets because

they would provide operators with an incentive to operate quiet

aircraft. A number of commenters recommend that if noise budgets are

adopted, they should be grandfathered to the current noise level.

Regarding the use of quiet aircraft technology, some commenters

support governmental incentives to encourage operators to use quiet

aircraft. Such incentives could include tax benefits, fee abatements,

loan programs, and increased allocations on the number of flights

allowed. Several air tour operators point out that without such

incentives, air tour operators could not afford to use quiet aircraft

technologies.

(6 ) Factors for evaluating recommendations. One commenter, the

Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, says that the FAA and NPS, in

evaluating recommendations, should ask: Will the measures be effective

in eliminating aircraft noise in noise sensitive areas? Are fundamental

park values, including natural quiet and protection of wildlife

habitats, fully preserved by the rulemaking? Can the FAA and NPS

implement effective management and enforcement strategies?

Another commenter, Helicopter Association International, recommends

the creation of a Federal Advisory Committee to conduct studies,

analyze information, and recommend regulatory actions on the issue of

overflights over national parks.

(7) The need for special operations specifications for conducting

sightseeing flights. Some commenters say that special operations

specifications for air tour operators are unnecessary, while others

support referencing the operation as part of operator specifications.

Some commenters, addressing air tour operations in Hawaii,

recommend that air tour operators conducting operations over water or

mountains be required to have special safety equipment and appropriate

pilot training. These commenters also recommend that low-altitude

aircraft operators in Hawaii adhere to instrument flight rules and

minimum flight regulations.

(8) Certificate under Part 121 or Part 135. Most commenters agree

that tour operation flights should be conducted under part 135.

Commenters do not support conducting these flights under part 121, and

several commenters argue that the safety record would not improve if

the requirements of part 121 were imposed. These commenters also argue

that operating under part 121 would not be cost effective.

(9) Specific parks that should be regulated. Some commenters

mention specific parks or areas that should be regulated. These areas

include: Polipoli State Park in Maui, Guadalupe Mountains National Park

in west Texas, Chiricahua National Monument in southeastern Arizona,

Catskill Park, Adirondak Park, the Shawangunk Ridge, Allegany State

Park, Glacier National Park, the Great Smoky Mountains National Park,

Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, the Jamaica Bay wildlife

preserve, Grand Teton National Park, Jedediah Smith Wilderness Area,

and the Grand Canyon National Park.

(10) Justification. Some commenters object to the justification for

rulemaking presented in the ANPRM. Several commenters state that NPS

has not conducted a study that would show that the park experience has

been derogated by air tour operations. Others commented that noise

studies being prepared for the NPS are biased against aircraft

operations and should not be used in their present form for any of the

future decisions regarding the use of airspace over NPS land.

As to the authority to regulate, commenters were divided: some

state that the FAA should continue to regulate airspace, others suggest

that NPS should have authority so that it can regulate all visitors to

a park. Certain commenters question whether the FAAct gives the agency

the authority to ``protect'' the population on the ground from aircraft

noise.

[[Page 17295]]

FAA Response

The FAA appreciates the time and effort that persons expended to

respond to this ANPRM. Although comments concerning overflights of the

national parks, and specifically how those flights should be regulated,

are somewhat polarized, many commenters gave the FAA specific advice

that will be helpful in future rulemaking. Commenters have indicated,

for example, that different parks have different needs, and that even

within parks, some areas may have different priorities for restoring

`natural quiet'. We understand that while quiet technology aircraft can

make a difference in noise levels, there must be some incentive for

operators to obtain expensive equipment. Overall, both the FAA and NPS

have gained a better understanding of the various positions on these

issues, both from those representing air tour operators and those

interested in preserving the beauty and quiet in our national parks.

Subsequent Rulemaking Efforts

On April 22, 1996, President Clinton issued a Memorandum to address

the significant impacts on visitor experience in national parks. In

this memorandum the President set out three goals: to place appropriate

limits on sightseeing aircraft at the GCNP; to address the potential

impact of noise at Rocky Mountain National Park; and, for the national

park system as a whole, to establish a framework for managing aircraft

operations over those park units identified in the NPS 1994 study as

priorities for maintaining or restoring the natural quiet.

In response to this memorandum, the FAA and NPS established, under

the authority of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) and

the National Park Service Advisory Board, a National Parks Overflights

Working Group (NPOWG). The NPOWG members were selected to represent

balanced interests that included the air tour operators, general

aviation users, other commercial interests, environmental and

conservation organizations, and Native Americans. The NPOWG was given

the task of reaching consensus on a recommended NPRM which would

establish a process for reducing or preventing the adverse effects of

commercial air tour operations over units of the National Park System.

The NPOWG met from May through November 1997. In December 1997,

members presented a concept paper to both the ARAC and the NPS Advisory

Board. Both advisory groups accepted the proposed concept, which

provides a mechanism, a process, whereby each unit of the National Park

System will determine the necessary restrictions for that unit based on

a park management plan that will be developed by the FAA with guidance

from the NPS and with input from all interested parties.

Following the acceptance of the concept by the ARAC and NPS

Advisory Board, the FAA and NPS are assisting the NPOWG in developing

an NPRM. The FAA anticipates that when the NPRM is ready for

publication, it would also plan public meetings to gain additional

comment on how the concept would work for individual parks.

Issued in Washington, DC on April 5, 1999.

David Traynham,

Assistant Administrator for Policy, Planning, and International

Aviation.

Jacqueline Lowey,

Deputy Director, National Park Service.

[FR Doc. 99-8920 Filed 4-8-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M